Offices in Ottawa and Perth
(613) 722-1500

CONTACT US (613) 722-1500

The Pleading of Ulterior Motive

The Pleading of Ulterior Motive

By:

Posted November 20, 2019

In the recent decision of Huachangda Canada Holdings Inc. v. Solcz Group Inc. (2019 ONCA 649), the Court of Appeal addressed when a defendant may plead or allege that a plaintiff has an ulterior motive for bringing the claim. In its decision, the Court of Appeal clarified that there is no absolute rule against alleging ulterior motive in a pleading, and pleadings containing allegations of ulterior motive may be permitted certain factual circumstances.

Background

Huachangda involved claims for alleged breaches of representations and warranties arising out of a share purchase agreement. The defendant/appellant, Solcz Group Inc. (“SGI”), an auto parts manufacturer, was the vendor and the plaintiff/respondent, Huachangda Canada Holdings Inc. (“HCH”), was the purchaser.

The Pleadings Issue

At issue in this litigation were two paragraphs of SGI’s Statement of Defence, which alleged that the HCH’s motive in bringing the claim was not “to recoup genuine damages for genuine wrongs”, but rather to obtain an after-the-fact reduction in the purchase price because of alleged financial and liquidity issues. HCH brought a motion to strike the two offending paragraphs under Rule 25.11.

The motion judge found the majority of the two paragraphs were improper on the basis that they plead ulterior motive, which was irrelevant to the causes of action asserted in HCH’s Statement of Claim, and unrelated to causation of the alleged damages or the alleged liquidity problems. The motion judge concluded that the two paragraphs were frivolous and vexatious under Rule 25.11, and struck out portions of them; without leave to amend.

The Appeal

SGI appealed, arguing that there is no general rule that any pleading touching on motive was irredeemably improper. The Court of Appeal dismissed this argument, with the Court noting that it did not read the motion judge’s decision as advancing that proposition. Instead, the Court of Appeal clarified that the trial judge had found that the plea of ulterior motive in that case was improper because it was irrelevant. The Court of Appeal considered this issue and found that the motion judge had applied the legal principles correctly, noting that a plea of ulterior motive, improper intent, or malice in bringing an action may be permitted in some circumstances, namely where the plea is an essential part of a cause of action or defence.

The appellants further argued that the improper paragraphs should not have been struck out as they were relevant to the plaintiff’s credibility on a material fact, namely the defendant’s allegation that the plaintiff suffered from “buyer’s remorse.” The Court of Appeal also rejected that argument, noting that credibility is an issue in almost every action and therefore a finding that pleadings of improper motive were relevant to determinations of credibility at large would mean that improper motive could be plead in almost every case, which would be inconsistent with past jurisprudence.

Ultimately, the Court agreed with the motion judge’s determination and dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal noted that, generally, allegations regarding a plaintiff’s personal reasons or motives in bringing an action, however improper, do not in themselves provide a defence to the action and are therefore irrelevant. That being said, the Court of Appeal also confirmed that a pleading of ulterior motive in bringing an action may be permitted in some circumstances, such as where the plea is an essential part of a cause of action or defence, or where it is otherwise relevant.

Takeaways

This decision is noteworthy in that the Court of Appeal confirms that the pleading of allegations of ulterior motive in bringing an action may be permitted in some circumstances. In doing so, the Court of Appeal provided important commentary about when pleadings of ulterior motive are permitted and when they should be struck under Rule 25.11.

This decision will be useful to counsel when determining whether a Statement of Defence should or should not include motive allegations, and assist parties in avoiding unnecessary motions to strike.

This blog post was written by Alexander Bissonnette, a member of the Commercial Litigation team.  He can be reached at 613-369-0358 or at Alexander.Bissonnette@mannlawyers.com.

More Resources

Blog |
Family Law
By: 
When couples part ways, the shared ownership of a matrimonial home often becomes a contentious issue. In Ontario, the law recognizes two forms of co-ownership:[...]
Blog |
Real Estate
By: 
If you are purchasing a home in Ontario, you likely know that you should retain a real estate lawyer to close the transaction for you.[...]
Blog |
Wills, Trusts and Estates
By: 

Posted May 14, 2024

This is often a question that arises when someone dies with debts and the estate trustees  are at a loss as to what to do[...]
Blog |
Business Law
By: 

Posted May 9, 2024

Every story has to start somewhere. When buying or selling a business, the journey usually begins with a well drafted letter of intent. A letter of[...]
Blog |
Wills, Trusts and Estates
By: 

Posted April 23, 2024

In this day and age, social media is at the forefront of everything – it’s where people obtain news, it’s where people spend numerous hours[...]
Blog |
Wills, Trusts and Estates
By: 
Clients frequently ask how often they should update their Wills. We generally suggest that when clients sit down to do the oh so fun task[...]
Alexander Bissonnette

Alexander Bissonnette

I am an associate and a member of the firm’s Commercial Litigation Group and Estate Litigation Group. My practice is exclusively focused on litigation matters, with an emphasis on commercial disputes and estate litigation. I have experience in a variety of disputes and litigation matters, including contract disputes, estate disputes, power of attorney disputes, collection matters (including post-judgment enforcement), franchise disputes, shareholder disputes and oppression matters, property disputes, insurance disputes (including broker negligence claims), procurement disputes, and mortgage enforcement. I also have significant experience working with senior counsel on complex commercial and estate litigation matters. After articling with Mann Lawyers, I was called to the Bar in 2017. Prior to that, I received my law degree in 2016 from the Faculty of Law at Queen’s University. During my time at Queen’s, I was actively involved with Queen’s Legal Aid, assisting students and Kingston residents with a variety of legal matters. Before... Read More

Read More About Alexander Bissonnette

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

"*" indicates required fields

Name*
Consent*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.